Agenda 21: Just the Facts

Myth: Agenda 21 seeks to promote “world government” through the creation of “a centralized planning agency [that] would be responsible for oversight into all areas of our lives.”

Fact: This is a completely spurious charge. Agenda 21 encourages, rather than compels, UN Member States to take into consideration the environmental impacts of their land, resources, and transportation development policies. Adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, the document reflects a broad international consensus that worsening poverty and growing stresses on the environment require greater integration between environmental and development concerns. Such a comprehensive approach to development is necessary in order for countries to be able to continue to meet the basic needs of their citizens, improve living standards, and manage the planet’s natural resources in an efficient manner.

Myth: Agenda 21 is an amalgamation of socialism and extreme environmentalism with strong anti-American and anti-capitalist overtones.

Fact: Agenda 21 provides a blueprint for sustainable development—development that simultaneously promotes economic growth, improved quality of life, and environmental protection. Agenda 21 was adopted unanimously by all 178 countries that participated in the 1992 Rio Conference. U.S. President George H.W. Bush was among the 108 world leaders present at the conference when the document was adopted.

Myth: The UN is bypassing national governments, using the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) “to make agreements directly with local governments” on implementing Agenda 21.

Fact: It says nothing of the sort. Agenda 21 does not call for the confiscation or appropriation of land or property anywhere, in any country. It is fully consistent with personal freedoms and the right of citizens to own property, homes, cars and farms.

Myth: Agenda 21 calls for the elimination of private property ownership, single-family homes, private car ownership and individual travel choices, as well as family farms.

Fact: Many municipalities and cities around the world have found that Agenda 21 is a very good guide for their own urban planning efforts and have joined an international group—ICLEI—to help implement some of its recommendations. ICLEI is not part of the UN. Many cities and towns throughout the U.S. belong to ICLEI, but their participation is not linked to any UN mandate.

Top Opinion

"Myth: Agenda 21 seeks to promote “world government” through the creation of “a centralized planning agency [that] would be responsible for oversight into all areas of our lives."

Truth:The UN itself is an intergovernmental organization. lol It's structured with personhood as every other government and it routinely exerts force over entities it deems in violation of the UN Charter, which is a body of LAW. That my friend is the very definition of "government." The fact that it initiates force all over the world, for defiance of its "charter," exhibits that it governs globally. lol

The entirety of your post is skewed as it neglects to acknowledge the true role of the UN itself. Members of the UN are subject to its charter. The charter claims that it does not supersede the Sovereignty of its members governments, yet it also claims the authority to both "grant rights" and initiate force, through its members, to compel other members or non-members into compliance or "peace." lol

By neglecting such, the entire premise of your post is absolutely false.

"Myth: Agenda 21 seeks to promote “world government” through the creation of “a centralized planning agency [that] would be responsible for oversight into all areas of our lives."

Truth:The UN itself is an intergovernmental organization. lol It's structured with personhood as every other government and it routinely exerts force over entities it deems in violation of the UN Charter, which is a body of LAW. That my friend is the very definition of "government." The fact that it initiates force all over the world, for defiance of its "charter," exhibits that it governs globally. lol

The entirety of your post is skewed as it neglects to acknowledge the true role of the UN itself. Members of the UN are subject to its charter. The charter claims that it does not supersede the Sovereignty of its members governments, yet it also claims the authority to both "grant rights" and initiate force, through its members, to compel other members or non-members into compliance or "peace." lol

By neglecting such, the entire premise of your post is absolutely false.

I would highly suggest you stop reading anti-United Nations conspiracy theories and, perhaps, the United States should strive to be a good global citizen and support peace instead of acting like a schoolyard bully.

LOL. There is no conspiracy about the UN darlin, it's right in their own charter.

I don't disagree that the US *bullies other nations. In fact, I would love nothing more than for us the remove both our troops and bases from the some 130+ countries we're currently stationed in. That would be a dream come true for me.

I'm just not foolish enough to believe the UN is a benevolent institution when it routinely exerts military force over other countries under the guise of "peace."

In 1949 the UN sought and was recognized as holding personhood status through the case: "Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations"

From the UN's own Charter:

"Article 2:7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

39. The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 41:The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, ...

In 1949 the UN sought and was recognized as holding personhood status through the case: "Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations"

From the UN's own Charter:

"Article 2:7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

39. The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 41:The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.

Article 42:Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations."

And that's all before we even get into their claiming the power to both "grant rights" and subject those rights to change under the law.

Either you're ignorant to the true standing of the United Nations or purposefully ignorant - I don't care which one. The UN charter itself evidences every statement I've made. You're way out of your league here.

I'm not sure that's really true, would like to see actual figures on that... but even if it is, it doesn't mean the UN isn't evil! A majority opinion has supported a lot of atrocities throughout history... aren't we still in a "peace-keeping" war that garnered massive support? True, our government had to blow-up a few buildings and blame the ones we needed to fight, but hey, whatever it takes to create a more sustainable and peaceful planet. New line, same story.

Do you seriously believe we are in war to fight terrorism? How does an "educated"... (I use that term REALLY loosely) uhemm, person not see the entire WTC shot-heard-round-the-world wasn't a ploy to get us in the Iraq (of all places) war?? ...because our heavily financed military does the bidding of the global elite, vatican-backed scum-bags. Do you really believe the federal government has you and your children's best interests at heart? I hate to break it to you, but they only care about themselves... being tucked away in their secret (or not-so-secret Denver Airport) bunkers, while the rest of despicable humanity clamors for unspoiled food and non-polluted water, during a healing cleanse for our "mother". Wake-up and smell the mustard gas... you are about to see the true colors of your precious administration. And BTW, Oklahoma City was just a training ground for the plastic explosives that were used in the WTC. Now, both sites have beautiful water memorials, so lovely.

I'm sorry. I wasn't insulting you, I was referring to the "educational" system in this country that seeks to indoctrinate people with it's lies and useless information. Compared to the rest of the world... we suck!! and have dumbed-down our children... so they won't think for themselves or ask too many questions. It's been planned! We used to be the smartest and most innovative people in the world... now we are ignorant compared to the rest of the developed nations.

"Re-writing of American history.." If you mean a fresh look at our history making it inclusive of women, Blacks, etc. I support those efforts. Too many American history books are written from a white perspective and omit women, Blacks, Native Americans, etc.

I'm a college student and I don't think the constitution is being disregarded. More than ever, we're part of a global community and students, today, must be knowledgeable of that reality. My own goals are evidence. I plan to pursue a dual Masters degree in Natural Resources and Sustainable Development. Part of my studies will take place at UPEACE. The need for sustainable development is global; poverty is a global issue; working for peace is a global issue; income inequality is a global issue. International law is important, and I wish our country was a better global citizen.

Whatever. The fact that our president is a constitutional scholar who has blatantly opposed it time and again, doesn't bother you? Remember the "recess" appointments he made... only congress WAS NOT in recess. How 'bout him saying if the supreme court struck down obama care it would be an unprecedented move? No, um, that is precisely what they are supposed to do if a law is unconstitutional, and they've done it 182 times since it's inception. Obama LIES!! Over and over and over again... education indeed. You want to be part of the global community? Well, say goodbye freedom and prosperity. The state will tell you what you can and can't have, say, do and know. Have fun with that... smoke up.

You seriously don't know the answer to your first question... it pains me to even have to explain... practically every move by his administration has been blatantly in opposition to the freedoms expressed within the document he swore an oath to uphold... "First, Obamacare itself. When it passed, and Speaker Pelosi was asked about its constitutionality, she famously responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The question to her was simply incomprehensible.

Throughout the course of defending Obamacare, the Justice Department has been unable to answer the simplest question: “What is your limiting principle? If Congress can do this, what can it not do?” Repeatedly, the solicitor general tried to dodge that question, because their true position is that there are no limits whatsoever on federal government authority.

In my judgment, the Supreme Court will not agree, and will likely strike down the individual mandate in Obamacare. And that is why President Obama attacked the Court last week, just as he did in his earlier State of the Union address — because he hopes to dissuade the Court from remaining faithful to the Constitution.

Second, President Obama has forced religious institutions to pay for insurance that covers things they abhor, and which they believe transgress the sanc...

You seriously don't know the answer to your first question... it pains me to even have to explain... practically every move by his administration has been blatantly in opposition to the freedoms expressed within the document he swore an oath to uphold... "First, Obamacare itself. When it passed, and Speaker Pelosi was asked about its constitutionality, she famously responded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” The question to her was simply incomprehensible.

Throughout the course of defending Obamacare, the Justice Department has been unable to answer the simplest question: “What is your limiting principle? If Congress can do this, what can it not do?” Repeatedly, the solicitor general tried to dodge that question, because their true position is that there are no limits whatsoever on federal government authority.

In my judgment, the Supreme Court will not agree, and will likely strike down the individual mandate in Obamacare. And that is why President Obama attacked the Court last week, just as he did in his earlier State of the Union address — because he hopes to dissuade the Court from remaining faithful to the Constitution.

Second, President Obama has forced religious institutions to pay for insurance that covers things they abhor, and which they believe transgress the sanctity of life. This has nothing to do with women’s rights or access to contraception; both of which are fully protected under current law. Instead, it is about the religious liberty guaranteed in the Constitution, something to which Obama pays little heed.

Third, he has attempted to make “recess” appointments of federal officers while the Senate was still in session. Here, the text of the Constitution is explicit that such appointments can be made only “during the Recess of the Senate.” But the president’s determination to ignore Congress and the Constitution is equally express: “When Congress refuses to act, and as a result, hurts our economy and puts our people at risk, then I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them.”

Fourth, he signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which purports to allow the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without due process of law. We should always remain vigilant in the war on terror, but the Constitution protects the right of habeas corpus — the Great Writ — for our citizens, and the president should not be willing to set it aside.

And fifth, President Obama has refused to enforce federal laws he doesn’t agree with — whether the Defense of Marriage Act, laws allowing offshore drilling in the Gulf, or our nation’s immigration laws. The Constitution expressly charges the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” yet Obama repeatedly abnegates that responsibility."http://www.nationalreview.com...

Yes, I know how to copy-paste as well as you, only I actually read between the lines and get the juice out... not just let it wash over me without truly considering if there is legitimate truth or just fluffy feel-good crap and lies.

Your post is, for the most part, just a rehash of tired conservative complaints. Speaker Pelosi was right to respond the way she did. The Catholic Church has a history of oppressing women; why would you expect it to change now. I have respect for all religions, but it's funny the way the Church goes crazy regarding women's rights but, for decades, helped hid priests who abused children. They are more than hypocritical.

President Obama was correct to oppose DOMA; it's a discriminatory law that violates the constitution.

President Obama has performed his job well; conservatives don't seem to care for elections they lose.

How exactly does DOMA violate the constitution? Liberals can swallow a camel, when in comes to violations of personal freedoms (we'll see how you feel about habeas corpus should you be detained without due process!) laid out in the constitution, yet strain at a gnat... like DOMA, to justify federal takeover of our rights. You are blind, brainwashed and foolhardy to believe this administration is looking out for your best interests. May you find the truth someday... you're going to need it.

In this 1:46 video, we point out 7 promises that then candidate Obama has already broken. We hope that all the people of the ObamaNation are happy with their president.

First, political candidates make "promises" all the time; how many has Mitt Romney made. It's disturbing you don't know political candidates, throughout American history, have made "promises" that later they can't get Congress to enact. That's not a lie on the part of the candidate; it's political reality.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

and remember when "whole language" was the thing? Let's not actually teach children how to sound out and READ a phonetic language... let's have them memorize what a certain word kind of looks like... based upon the words around it... and let them sort out the "meaning" to figure out what a sentence says. That was a truly progressive move in American education... towards illiteracy.

By those last few statements, you have completely discredited yourself as a fair and rational thinking person. You have proven yourself to be a racist, narrow-minded puppet of the fascist left. Your prejudice has clouded your ability to look at the facts and make accurate and reasonable conclusions. You are the true definition of a fool, and a waste of my time.

it truly is a giant chess game, and Obama and crew are silly pawns in the charade. Sadly, he won't be sitting so pretty when they're done with him. Just like they used Martin Luther King... they are the white supremacist a$$holes who enlist their "subordinates" to do their dirty work. They will rot in hell.

Youch! I am appalled at the amount of stupidity... I mean, ignorance, from die-hard Obama supporters that can't see how the Elitist blood-thirsty zionist thugs are using him for their global agenda. Yes, he's a well-educated, well-groomed politician... but they are master-minds and global terrorists with centuries of deception, manipulation, monopolization, and assassination under their belts. Obama is way out of his league... and the race card is played by the zionists all the time.